Author
Topic: jakec47's beliefs (Read 8531 times)

My beliefs are as follows: - I believe that there is one God, the God of the Bible. - I believe that the Flood was an actual happening and that Noah's ark was historical. - I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God - I do not believe in Evolution, however I do not understand it, I believe God made all animals according to their various kinds. - I believe the Earth is about 6,000 years old not billions. - I believe anything the Bible says - I believe in Heaven for the saved. - I believe those not saved will be annihilated in hellfire. - I believe when we die we sleep until the resurrection at the end of days.That is about most of the beliefs I can think of right now. Which one would you like to discuss?

My beliefs are as follows: - I believe that there is one God, the God of the Bible. - I believe that the Flood was an actual happening and that Noah's ark was historical. - I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God - I do not believe in Evolution, however I do not understand it, I believe God made all animals according to their various kinds. - I believe the Earth is about 6,000 years old not billions. - I believe anything the Bible says - I believe in Heaven for the saved. - I believe those not saved will be annihilated in hellfire. - I believe when we die we sleep until the resurrection at the end of days.That is about most of the beliefs I can think of right now. Which one would you like to discuss?

A few questions for you jake.

1. Have you read the bible from cover to cover at any point in your life?2. Do you normally believe everything about every book you've ever read or just the bible? 3. Have you ever, in your life, had these beliefs that you hold seriously challenged, or have you ever seriously considered and attempted to refute the arguments against what you believe? 4. Have you studied any biblical history (about how the bible came to be, who wrote it, how many copies we have, etc). 5. Could you ever see yourself admitting that you've been wrong about God for your entire life?

I don't want to turn the debate challenges thread into a discussion thread, but I think we should know what we are getting into with you. No offense intended, but it sounds like you've been force-fed the Jesus juice from birth, and it may be pointless to debate with you if you aren't willing to admit that you could be wrong about it.

Logged

Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

I don't want to turn the debate challenges thread into a discussion thread, but I think we should know what we are getting into with you. No offense intended, but it sounds like you've been force-fed the Jesus juice from birth, and it may be pointless to debate with you if you aren't willing to admit that you could be wrong about it.

my bolds

the first bold ...ditto

the second bold to mention to jakec that it is very reasonable for Jeff to make this point. It applies both ways and I would suspect every atheist here would acknowledge a willingness to admit they were wrong about their atheism if you could show/prove them wrong.

Logged

"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester." Bill Bailey

My beliefs are as follows: - I believe that there is one God, the God of the Bible. - I believe that the Flood was an actual happening and that Noah's ark was historical. - I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God - I do not believe in Evolution, however I do not understand it, I believe God made all animals according to their various kinds. - I believe the Earth is about 6,000 years old not billions. - I believe anything the Bible says - I believe in Heaven for the saved. - I believe those not saved will be annihilated in hellfire. - I believe when we die we sleep until the resurrection at the end of days.That is about most of the beliefs I can think of right now. Which one would you like to discuss?

1. Have you read the bible from cover to cover at any point in your life?2. Do you normally believe everything about every book you've ever read or just the bible? 3. Have you ever, in your life, had these beliefs that you hold seriously challenged, or have you ever seriously considered and attempted to refute the arguments against what you believe? 4. Have you studied any biblical history (about how the bible came to be, who wrote it, how many copies we have, etc). 5. Could you ever see yourself admitting that you've been wrong about God for your entire life?

I don't want to turn the debate challenges thread into a discussion thread, but I think we should know what we are getting into with you. No offense intended, but it sounds like you've been force-fed the Jesus juice from birth, and it may be pointless to debate with you if you aren't willing to admit that you could be wrong about it.

1. I have not read the whole Bible cover to cover, I have been working on it and have read a lot of it, I probably will have read most of what people talk about.2. I normally don't believe every book just the Bible, for very good reasons.3. I have had them challenged many times and defended them seriously, this would probably be the most serious debate however. And since I have to write out my answers I have to shorten them because its a lot to say.4. I have studied Biblical history. Probably not all of it, but mainly the non-Catholic history, Protestants and how the Bible came to be and such.5. I have pretty strong proof that God is real and it would be difficult to admit he is not, and I have to say I probably will never admit he is not, but only because I have such proof that he is. However there are things about the Bible that I could admit I am wrong about. If you proved to me God wasn't real I would listen but it probably isn't very convincing compared to the proofs I've encountered.

And I have not been for fed Jesus from birth it was only recently that I've come to the knowledge of God. So I have experience in other areas. I assure you it will not be pointless to debate with you.

5. I have pretty strong proof that God is real and it would be difficult to admit he is not, and I have to say I probably will never admit he is not, but only because I have such proof that he is. However there are things about the Bible that I could admit I am wrong about. If you proved to me God wasn't real I would listen but it probably isn't very convincing compared to the proofs I've encountered.

If your mind is not really open to the possibility that you are wrong, what is the point in talking to you? Why should anyone bother putting forth the effort?

1. I have not read the whole Bible cover to cover, I have been working on it and have read a lot of it, I probably will have read most of what people talk about.

And that’s a problem. Christians usually only talk about the parts that show their god in a good light. You need to read it all. For people who claim that they believe everything the bible says, it’s hilarious that you haven’t even checked that out for yourself.

Quote

2. I normally don't believe every book just the Bible, for very good reasons.

And what would these “good reasons” be? The bible gets facts wrong. The bible claims events that have no evidence to support they ever happened, the flood, the exodus, the nonsense around the crucifiction, etc. We see Christians everyday make opposing claims on what parts of the bible are literal and what are metaphor. There’s no reason to think that the bible is correct or valid at all. The only “reason” I see for you believing all of the bible is that you’ve depended on ignorance and cherry picking to create your own religion and god.

Quote

3. I have had them challenged many times and defended them seriously, this would probably be the most serious debate however. And since I have to write out my answers I have to shorten them because its a lot to say.

People have time. so write all you need.

Quote

4. I have studied Biblical history. Probably not all of it, but mainly the non-Catholic history, Protestants and how the Bible came to be and such.

I’ve not seen much evidence that you’ve done this at all and definitely none that you’ve looked anywhere except in theist sources.

Quote

5. I have pretty strong proof that God is real and it would be difficult to admit he is not, and I have to say I probably will never admit he is not, but only because I have such proof that he is. However there are things about the Bible that I could admit I am wrong about. If you proved to me God wasn't real I would listen but it probably isn't very convincing compared to the proofs I've encountered.

Show this “proof”. I think this will become a Christians claiming that he has all the evidence anyone could ever want, but when asked for it, he'll make up any excuse possible to avoid having to make good.

Logged

"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

Well screwtape if you don't have enough confidence in your arguments then there is no point. And velkyn, these are my beliefs stated so that you know what I believe to debate me on one of them and just a one on one debate, so I won't answer all your quesitons about all my beliefs that is what the debate is for.

Well screwtape if you don't have enough confidence in your arguments then there is no point.

Confidence in his arguments has nothing to do with it. You've outright stated that even if presented with definite proof that you're wrong, you'll still choose to believe that you're right. So even if you have the most airtight argument possible and you have absolute confidence in it where is the point to using it on someone who doesn't care about evidence?

Well screwtape if you don't have enough confidence in your arguments then there is no point. And velkyn, these are my beliefs stated so that you know what I believe to debate me on one of them and just a one on one debate, so I won't answer all your quesitons about all my beliefs that is what the debate is for.

Okay. We'll go with what I asked in my last post. You can pick one of the two things I asked, one a question the other a request for the "proof" you claimed you have:

Quote

2. I normally don't believe every book just the Bible, for very good reasons.

And what would these “good reasons” be?

Quote

5. I have pretty strong proof that God is real and it would be difficult to admit he is not, and I have to say I probably will never admit he is not, but only because I have such proof that he is. However there are things about the Bible that I could admit I am wrong about. If you proved to me God wasn't real I would listen but it probably isn't very convincing compared to the proofs I've encountered.

Show this “proof”. I think this will become a Christians claiming that he has all the evidence anyone could ever want, but when asked for it, he'll make up any excuse possible to avoid having to make good.

Pick and I'm sure one of the mods would be kind enough to set us up a one-on-one debate.

Logged

"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

Pick and I'm sure one of the mods would be kind enough to set us up a one-on-one debate.

I'd be happy to , but he's already supposed to be in a debate with kcrady from a month ago. I locked the thread when he appeared to have abandoned the site without making a single post in the debate. I unlocked it yesterday(?) at his behest. I can open another debate thread for you two, but if I were you, I'd wait and see if he follows through on his original debate first.

My beliefs are as follows: - I believe that there is one God, the God of the Bible. - I believe that the Flood was an actual happening and that Noah's ark was historical. - I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God - I do not believe in Evolution, however I do not understand it, I believe God made all animals according to their various kinds. - I believe the Earth is about 6,000 years old not billions. - I believe anything the Bible says - I believe in Heaven for the saved. - I believe those not saved will be annihilated in hellfire. - I believe when we die we sleep until the resurrection at the end of days.That is about most of the beliefs I can think of right now. Which one would you like to discuss?

Please explain how Noah obtained a mating pair (or seven) of Pseudacteon gracilisetus when we have only recently come to know that they exist, and in North America, nonetheless. By what means did Noah obtain these phorid flies to protect them from the flood?

Also, where did the 840,730,240,000,000,000,000[1] gallons of water come from, and where did they go? And how did it all fall in 40 days and nights? That is 243,266,851,851,851.85 gallons of rainfall PER SECOND. That's right, 243 TRILLION gallons of rain per second. You really believe that? OK, sure. Whatever. Did the talking snake survive the flood?

- I believe that the Flood was an actual happening and that Noah's ark was historical.

I like to point this one out a lot and probably others here are getting tired of me using it, instead of taking the long winded route, how would you respond if I told you that the story of Noah exists in an older polytheistic Mesopotamian religion? The difference being it was the Mesopotamian gods involved and not Jehovah. If Jehovah announced himself to Noah, then how does it appear in an older religion first? Surely the civilization to follow Noah would be worshipping Jehovah and not a series of Mesopotamian gods.

Logged

“It is difficult to understand the universe if you only study one planet” - Miyamoto MusashiWarning: I occassionally forget to proofread my posts to spot typos or to spot poor editing.

Has anyone who believes in the Noah's Ark story been to a zoo recently? Consider: no zoo on earth has ever been able to obtain one mating pair of every animal on the planet. Not even just the mammals. Or the birds. Or the reptiles. Not even close. We don't even know how many animals exist, or where they all are.

Noah had all that info, and made this really long list and a drew a really detailed map-- that we cannot recreate with today's advanced technology. Noah would have to 1)collect all the animnals and then 2)get them back to the right locations after the flood. Kangaroos right back to Australia, mate. Nowhere else.

Many animals live in such specialized environments (temperature, air pressure, humidity, altitude, food sources, etc) that it would take a very expensive and exacting process to move them from one habitat to another. And the new habitat would have to replicate the original one (same temperature, altitude, food, etc.).

Noah did all this without heating, air conditioning, a barometer or even a thermometer.

Koala bears only eat fresh eucalyptus leaves. And pandas eat bamboo. Polar bears eat, well, fresh fish and stuff like.... koala bears. So you would have to have the food sources all squared away, and be able to keep the predators away from the prey. You would have to move the animals to the new habitat pretty damn quick so they would not go hungry or eat each other.

Noah did this, before airplanes or motorized vehicles of any kind.

We won't even get into the massive feeding, watering and sanitation problems you face with just two elephants on a boat for over a month. You are talking, literally, tons of animal sh!t. Like I said, been to a zoo lately? Want to smell that for forty days?

And we are just talking about a few mammals. Add in the insects, reptiles, birds, slugs, spiders, worms, bacteria, viruses, parasites that live in or on hosts organisms. We have not even considered all the zillion plant species that would have to be saved from the flood waters.

We could not do anything close to that with today's technology. So, it did not happen 4000 years ago. This Noah's ark thing, my bible-believing friend, could not have happened. It. did. not. happen.

If you say Noah did it all with god magic, then, why have a big-a$$ flood at all? Just erase the bad stuff from the earth with god magic and start over.

But then you have to ask all kinds of icky questions, like where did the bad stuff come from, and didn't god know the people would be bad, and why did god want to kill all the babies and puppies and evil giraffes that did not make it onto the ark....

- I believe that the Flood was an actual happening and that Noah's ark was historical.

I like to point this one out a lot and probably others here are getting tired of me using it, instead of taking the long winded route, how would you respond if I told you that the story of Noah exists in an older polytheistic Mesopotamian religion? The difference being it was the Mesopotamian gods involved and not Jehovah. If Jehovah announced himself to Noah, then how does it appear in an older religion first? Surely the civilization to follow Noah would be worshipping Jehovah and not a series of Mesopotamian gods.

I am well aware of this fact.

"The flood narrative in Genesis is more realistic and less mythological than other ancient versions, indicating its authenticity. The superficial similarities point toward a historical core of events that gave rise to all accounts, not toward plagiarism by Moses. The names change. Noah is called Ziusudra by the Sumerians and Utnapishtim by the Babylonians. The basic story doesn't. A man is told to build a ship to specific dimensions because God(s) is going to flood the world. He does it, rides out the storm, and offers sacrifice upon exiting the boat. The Deity(-ies) responds with remorse over the destruction of life and make a covenant with the man. These core events point to a historical basis.

Similar flood accounts are found all over the world. The flood is told of by the Greeks, the Hindus, the Chinese, the Mexicans, the Algonquins, and the Hawaiians. One list of Sumerian kings treats the flood as a historical reference point. After naming eight kings who lived extraordinarily long lives (tens of thousands of years), this sentence interrupts the list: "[Then] the Flood swept over [the earth] and when kingship was lowered [again] from heaven, kingship was [first] in Kish."

There are good reasons to believe that Genesis gives the original story. The other versions contain elaborations indicating corruption. Only in Genesis in the year of the flood given as well as dates for the chronology relative to Noah's life. In fact, Genesis reads almost like a diary or ship's log of the events. The cubical Babylonian ship could not have saved anyone. The raging waters would have constantly turned it on every side. However, the biblical ark is rectangular-long, wide, and low-so that it would ride the rough seas well. The length of the rainfall in the pagan accounts (seven days) is not enough time for the devastation they describe. The waters would have to rise at least above most mountains, to a height of above seventeen thousand feet, and it is more reasonable to assume a longer rainfall to do this. The Babylonian idea that all of the floodwaters subsided in one day is equally absurd.

Another striking difference between Genesis and the other versions is that in these accounts the hero is granted immortality and exalted. The Bible moves on to Noah’s sin. Only a version that seeks to tell the truth would include this realistic admission.

Some have suggested that this was a severe but localized flood. However, there is geological evidence to support a worldwide flood. Partial skeletons of recent animals are found in deep fissures in several parts of the world, and the flood seems to be the best explanation for these. This would explain how these fissures occur even in hills of considerable height, which extend from 140 feet to 300 feet. Since no skeleton is complete, it is safe to conclude that none of these animals (mammoths, bears, wolves, oxen, hyenas, rhinoceroses, aurochs, deer, and smaller mammals) fell into these fissures alive, nor were they rolled there by streams. Yet the calcite cementing these diverse bones together indicates that they must have been deposited under water. Such fissures have been discovered in various places around the world. This evidence shows what a brief but violent episode of this sort would be expected to cause within the short span of one year. (Geisler, Norman L. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998.)" - (McDowell, Josh Evidence for Christianity. Nashville, TN: Nelson, Inc. 2006)

Oh - shit yes, it's awn! I can't wait to read all of this. Pound. it. to. death. This is pure creationism, the type of stuff you should expect is going to be taught in schools soon...

Logged

"If you find yourself reaching for the light, first realize that it has already touched your finger.""If I were your god, I would have no reason for judgement, and you have all told endless lies about me. Wait - you do already. I am not amused by your ignorance, thoughtlessness, and shallow mind."

The names change. Noah is called Ziusudra by the Sumerians and Utnapishtim by the Babylonians. The basic story doesn't. A man is told to build a ship to specific dimensions because God(s) is going to flood the world. He does it, rides out the storm, and offers sacrifice upon exiting the boat. The Deity(-ies) responds with remorse over the destruction of life and make a covenant with the man. These core events point to a historical basis.

jake, do you not see how completely idiotic the core elements of this story are? From the start we have an absurd idea to kick around: that an all powerful and all knowing being feels remorse. This type of deity does the impossible by somehow unknowingly letting himself down. Consider the following:

• An all knowing has knowledge of the future.• An all powerful being would have the power to change anything.

So with the foresight and power to correct mistakes, why would this deity choose to live with remorse over a problem that didn't have to be a burden to the deity to begin with? It makes absolutely no sense.

The next thing you want us to swallow is the idea that the deity responsible for the creation of 300 sextillion stars and the mechanics of thermodynamics, thinks a blood sacrifice would be the ideal ending to an excessively dramatic world genocide by water. Tell me jake, why would your god, a supposedly perfect being, enjoy burning animal flesh? Of all the questions I'll ask here I'm most interested in this answer from you. "The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma[...]"[1] Seriously, which being would you associate with reveling in the smell of melting flesh from animal corpses- God or a demon?

The core events of the deluge myth are still incredibly stupid. Seriously reread what you just copy/pasted.

One list of Sumerian kings treats the flood as a historical reference point. After naming eight kings who lived extraordinarily long lives (tens of thousands of years)[...]

Let me stop you right there. jake, do you actually believe these Sumerian men lived to be tens of thousands of years old? King Alalngar is written to have lived, within the King's List, 36,000 years. Tell me, does that type of life span fit into our reality?

I will now elaborate. The abbreviation used for 'Utnapishtim' is 'Na'ish', the pronunciation that would have been used in Palestine around that time is 'Noah'. This is one suggestion that the biblical version may be plagiarise. Have a read of The Epic of Gilgamesh and Atrahasis. Both contain the same story. The reason I suggest to have a read of it is because the narratives are eerily similar.

As for dates, Ziusudra and Gilgamesh are recorded in the Sumerian list of Kings,

So much for the measurements of an ark being realistic. Unless of course Noah only needed enough species for evolution to occur, but sadly, science the evolution of existing specifies were not that quick.

Interesting (I looked up to see where you might have got your information) that the proportions in Atrahasis aren't mentioned, I can't remember them off of the top of my head so I'll have to dig out my copy later and see how they compare. (And also check Gilgamesh to check the accuracy as the sources seem to be from Creationist websites and generally I find they like distort the truth)

On the note of the realism of it raining 40 days and 40 nights. No, it's not realistic. But of course, it's divine intervention. But if it's divine intervention then why would the number of days matter? Surely a god would have the power to flood the world in 7 days? It'd only have to rain 5.71 times as hard. Maybe this suggests the Mesopotamian gods are simply more powerful?

Quote

Another striking difference between Genesis and the other versions is that in these accounts the hero is granted immortality and exalted. The Bible moves on to Noah’s sin. Only a version that seeks to tell the truth would include this realistic admission.

But Noah lives for an unrealistic number of years. Hardly a realistic admission.

Speaking of realism

The almighty all knowing God finds that his creations are too evil and decides to wipe them out, but picks a select group of humans he deemed worthy to repopulate once the flood is over. But these humans are just sinful as ever. God did not foresee that this would happen and once again he's got a population of sinful humans again. So much for 'fixing' things. Hardly realistic for an omniscient and omnipotent being.

The Mesopotamian Gods on the other hand, a little more realistic, they actually have their own flaws, they don't try and claim perfection. There were a group of gods who agreed to flood the world and wipe out the species, but one god disagreed and sought to give everybody a second chance and he contacted Utnapishtim/Atrahasis/Noah to save all living things by building an ark.

But in real realism, it's all unrealistic.

Plus this version of the story is much older than the accounts of the bible. Where would have the Jews got the more realistic account? Surely they got their version from an earlier version of the story? Storytelling has a habit of changing a story as it gets past down each generation.

But I will leave with a final note. The Canaanite religion, it's got interesting connections to Abrahamic religion and Mesopotamian. Kothar-wa-hasis (a Canaanite god) shares the same epithet as Atrahasis and Kothar-wa-hasis is the god of craftsmanship. It'd make a fair evolution in the story of a craftsman who'd become immortal. Yahweh is another one of their gods. I don't need to say who Yahweh is.

To add. (The time where I'm allowed to modify my post as elapsed, so sorry for the double post) I've reread Atrahasis and the section of The Epic of Gilgamesh covering the flood and I can talk about what's stated. I'm using the unabridged version[1] (I've got abridged and they're easier to read, but I prefer accuracy).

Quote from: Tablet XI - The Epic of Gilgamesh

The boat that you are to buildShall have her dimensions in proportion,Her width and length shall be in harmony,Roof her like the Apsu.

Quote from: Tablet XI - The Epic of Gilgamesh

On the fifth day I laid down her form.One acre was her circumference, ten poles eachthe height of her wallsHer top edge was likewise ten poles all round.I laid down her structure, drew it out,Gave her six decks,Divided her into seven

What do we learn from this? 1) It has a circumference. This suggests it is curved, not cubed2) Its area is 1 acre3) Its height of the walls 10 poles

What's the issue?What is an acre to them? I actually found the Mesopotamian acre, 6480 square cubits[2]. But what's a Mesopotamian cubit? The Sumerian (though Gilgamesh is Akkadian, but both are in Mesopotamia) is 52/53 cm[3]. (Bigger than what we'd call a cubit). So we can work out that a Mesopotamian acre is likely around 3369.6 square metres (at least from using a calculator) making it smaller that what we call an acre today (4046m2).[4]

Which is all fine and dandy. But how tall is a pole? In Tablet X Gilgamesh makes poles of 60 cubits in length. That's 31.8 metres. So if the walls are 10 poles high, that would be 318 metres, which would make the ark top heavy. But the tablet doesn't actually measure the cubits in the story Utnapishtim is telling back to Gilgamesh. It could be any length.

"The flood narrative in Genesis is more realistic and less mythological than other ancient versions, indicating its authenticity. The superficial similarities point toward a historical core of events that gave rise to all accounts, not toward plagiarism by Moses. The names change. Noah is called Ziusudra by the Sumerians and Utnapishtim by the Babylonians. The basic story doesn't. A man is told to build a ship to specific dimensions because God(s) is going to flood the world. He does it, rides out the storm, and offers sacrifice upon exiting the boat. The Deity(-ies) responds with remorse over the destruction of life and make a covenant with the man. These core events point to a historical basis.

That’s hilarious. Please do show how “more realistic” it is, Jake. show me how it’s realistic to claim that all animals fit on a boat. Please show it’s realistic to claim that the water covered all of the mountains on the earth. “More realistic” means nothing when it requires the changing of physical laws ot get any of this nonsense to work. You may as well claim that the world was made last Thursday and we only think we remember before that.

Quote

Similar flood accounts are found all over the world. The flood is told of by the Greeks, the Hindus, the Chinese, the Mexicans, the Algonquins, and the Hawaiians. One list of Sumerian kings treats the flood as a historical reference point. After naming eight kings who lived extraordinarily long lives (tens of thousands of years), this sentence interrupts the list: "[Then] the Flood swept over [the earth] and when kingship was lowered [again] from heaven, kingship was [first] in Kish."

Gee, the Egyptians missed the flood. I love the cherry picking here. And dear, people don’t live for 10,000 years. It’s just great to see such idiocy cited as evidence. Civilizations use floods in their attempts to explain the world because civilizations almost always form around rivers. The Egyptians likely didn’t have a similar flood myth since they benefit from floods.

Quote

There are good reasons to believe that Genesis gives the original story. The other versions contain elaborations indicating corruption. Only in Genesis in the year of the flood given as well as dates for the chronology relative to Noah's life. In fact, Genesis reads almost like a diary or ship's log of the events. The cubical Babylonian ship could not have saved anyone. The raging waters would have constantly turned it on every side. However, the biblical ark is rectangular-long, wide, and low-so that it would ride the rough seas well. The length of the rainfall in the pagan accounts (seven days) is not enough time for the devastation they describe. The waters would have to rise at least above most mountains, to a height of above seventeen thousand feet, and it is more reasonable to assume a longer rainfall to do this. The Babylonian idea that all of the floodwaters subsided in one day is equally absurd.

No, it doesn’t give dates. Again, no evidence that people lived for hundreds of years ever. Christians can’t even agree on when the flood supposedly happened. So much for their lies. No ship of any kind in the ancient world could have saved what is claimed in the bible and gee, again Christians can’t agree on what shape it was so your claims of what could and couldn’t be capsized is pure nonsense. Your ignorance about watercraft is telling. Absolutely hysterical that you are offended by having “only” 7 days in the “pagan” myths but whoo-hoo! 40 days is enough in yours. Sorry, neither work.

Quote

Another striking difference between Genesis and the other versions is that in these accounts the hero is granted immortality and exalted. The Bible moves on to Noah’s sin. Only a version that seeks to tell the truth would include this realistic admission.

Yep, the only “good” person that your god could find was a drunkard who was such an idiot to curse, not the man who saw him naked (or more likely had sex with Mrs. Noah) but another person and your ignorant god allowed the curse to supposedly stick.

Quote

Some have suggested that this was a severe but localized flood. However, there is geological evidence to support a worldwide flood. Partial skeletons of recent animals are found in deep fissures in several parts of the world, and the flood seems to be the best explanation for these. This would explain how these fissures occur even in hills of considerable height, which extend from 140 feet to 300 feet. Since no skeleton is complete, it is safe to conclude that none of these animals (mammoths, bears, wolves, oxen, hyenas, rhinoceroses, aurochs, deer, and smaller mammals) fell into these fissures alive, nor were they rolled there by streams. Yet the calcite cementing these diverse bones together indicates that they must have been deposited under water. Such fissures have been discovered in various places around the world. This evidence shows what a brief but violent episode of this sort would be expected to cause within the short span of one year. (Geisler, Norman L. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998.)" - (McDowell, Josh Evidence for Christianity. Nashville, TN: Nelson, Inc. 2006)

How sad, you only have lies upon lies. No, there is no evidence of a worldwide flood. If there was, there would be one massive layer sorted only by hydrology, having all fossils mixed up in it depending on their size and shape, not by complexity as we see, and the sand, silt and heavier particles therein being graded coarse at the bottom and fine at the top. Reality does not support this. For a good video on how the lies of creationists fail see here:

Sad to see that Christians have to lie and lie so ineptly. The sheer stupidity and deceit in these claims is amazing. Creationist liars have been trying to claim that “polystrate” fossils are evidence. Poor things, they evidently have never seen a gully cut by erosion. Some articles disproving the lies of your fellow Christians: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html

We see no mixing of modern and prehistoric fossils like these people lie about. Fossils are often incomplete because of how fossils are made, something these liars have no idea about or willfully ignore. These liars do not cite the skeletons that they claim are there, more evidence that they are lying. And calcite? More ignorance since not all fossils are made by calcite and indeed many of these more recent critters, mammoths, etc, aren’t replaced with minerals completely or at all.

Jake, I know it’s probably hard for you to accept but the fact is that your fellow Christians intentionally lie to you.

Logged

"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB